Edit documentation nodes by updating content, metadata, or parent hierarchy. Resolve outdated or mislocated nodes by modifying their details in place.
Update content, metadata, or hierarchy parents for existing nodes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodes | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes | Canonical documentation source ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether hierarchy changes have side effects (e.g., orphaned nodes), whether there are limits (maxItems 500 is in schema but not described), or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It earns its place by summarizing the three update categories, though it could be slightly more specific about behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 required parameters, a nested nodes array with 7 fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know whether updates are partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, how parent_ids behaves, and what happens on failure. The description doesn't provide enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: source_id and id have descriptions, but title, content, position, parent_ids, source_ref, and content_type lack descriptions. The description's phrase 'content, metadata, or hierarchy parents' maps loosely to these fields, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify semantics like what 'position' means or how parent_ids interacts with existing parents (replace vs append).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing nodes'), and lists the three updateable aspects: content, metadata, or hierarchy parents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_nodes and remove_nodes, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for modifying existing nodes, which contrasts with add_nodes (creating) and remove_nodes (deleting). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like the source_id being required or that nodes must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.